Adultery could mean life, court finds

This is what pisses me off about the states. We have an overcrowded prison system, but look for goofy ways to add EVEN MORE to the problem.

"The ruling is especially awkward for Attorney General Mike Cox, whose office triggered it by successfully appealing a lower court's decision to drop CSC charges against a Charlevoix defendant. In November 2005, Cox confessed to an adulterous relationship."

"Among the many crimes Michigan still recognizes as felonies, they noted pointedly, is adultery -- although the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan notes that no one has been convicted of that offense since 1971."

"Some judges and lawyers suggested that the Court of Appeals' reference to prosecuting adulterers was a sly slap at Cox, noting that it was his office that pressed for the expansive definition of criminal sexual conduct the appellate judges so reluctantly embraced in their Nov. 7 ruling.

If you guys think this is bad, the worst is yet to come, especially since the democrats -- or should I say, 'demoncrats' -- took over. The terror -- as Stephen King put it in his horror novel, "IT" -- is just beginning. The best thing to do is never marry and you'll never be accused of adultery.

I'm sooo glad I chose to stay single!

LOL! I can see the marriage rate plummeting even more.

Personally, from a moral perspective, I believe abortion is much worse than adultery. My guess is that most people would agree with me, even those that consider themselves pro-choice.

Regardless, my point is the following. If a married woman can "do what she wants with her body" by having an abortion with or without the consent or knowledge of her husband, then why can't a man do the same? Why can't a married man have sex with another woman with or without the consent or knowledge of his wife. His body, his choice. No?

This has nothing to do with disease, pregnancy, or anything like that. People believe adultery is immoral and they believe they have the right to impose and even legislate this morality on others.

I would think that the same people who talk about "right wing religious fanatics" when it comes to the pro-life crowd would use the same terminology when discussing those "anti-adultery zealots" who are trying to impose their religious views on others. Adultery *is* one of the Big 10. In fact, I'd think that they would argue that the government should subsidize prostitution so that economically disadvantaged married men can have sex any time they want. Sex on demand (to be fair, women too). After all, the Supreme Court did rule that sex is a fundamental right. (They ruled that people with AIDS fall under the Americans With Disabilities Act because they "cannot" have sex, which is a fundamental right, and therefore dentists can not deny services to people with AIDS. It would be like denying services to someone in a wheelchair.)

Abortion is considered a right because this is something that only women can do. Adultery is considered a crime because it is perceived to be something that men and only men do.

Hopefully, anyone prosecuted under this will appeal to the federal courts which should declare the law to be a violation of the First Amendment's implied right to privacy (to live your own personal life free from government interference). It would be great if Michigan's government were admonished and if anyone prosecuted under this Soviet-style law could then sue the state for damages.

Reading that article made my head hurt so much i think i need some oxycontin...

I can see the basic point of the law: if marriage is a contract of sexual exclusivity, as is widely believed, then isn't adultery breech of contract? Isn't it the state's biz to enforce contracts?

Maybe not a felony, but thirty lashes wouldn't seem excessive.

* MB

If someone with better legal expertise could comment, it seems that this MI. law is a return to fault-based divorce, i.e. a 1950's-style "who's the bad guy" concept.

How can this fit in with the universally accepted "no fault" Divorce Industry, which allows any married person to refute their holy vows due to such claims as -- "I'm unfulfilled, I'm bored, I need my space?"
(MySpace.com?)

Marriage is the only so-called contract where either party can wake up any given morning and just say --- "Sorry babe. You fulfilled all your obligations. But I'm foresaking the agreement now. It's not that you did anything wrong. And I'd like the house, the car, and 50% of your pension plan...)

Since 70% of divorces are initiated by women, what does this Michigan law INTEND?

I can see the basic point of the law: if marriage is a contract of sexual exclusivity, as is widely believed, then isn't adultery breech of contract? Isn't it the state's biz to enforce contracts?

Does the contract clause that requires sexual exclusivity come before or after the part where it says, "Till Death Do Us Part?"

By definition, divorce is a much greater breech of contract than adultery. Considering 70% of divorces are initiated by women and mostly for fluff reasons such as "we grew apart," why isn't the state equally committed to punish those who file for divorce?

Michigan has to be one of the most jail house happy states there is!

The trend is obviously to have 50% of the residents (particularly the males) in prison and the other 50% guarding them!

All good questions, everyone, none of which I have any answers to. Whatever the rules are, if they're just fair and are fairly enforced, I think we can generally handle it.

Beyond that, I'm most indebted to the man who astutely and correctly pointed out that marriage for men these days is essentially a type of "adhesion contract" -- that is, it's terms (whatever they are) are only enforced against him, but rarely if ever on his behalf.

adhesion contract - n. a contract (often a signed form) so imbalanced in favor of one party over the other that there is a strong implication it was not freely bargained. [from one online law dictionary]

For a variety of reasons, I think us MRA's should use this term more frequently when talking about marriage.

Another handy little zinger: "Divorce for women is like cashing out stock options." (OutsourceWomen)

* MB

(Shawn) - "In fact, I'd think that they would argue that the government should subsidize prostitution so that economically disadvantaged married men can have sex any time they want. Sex on demand..."

Shawn, you need to convert to Islam and move to Iraq, where this very practice has become commonplace.

With the war’s slaughter of Iraqui men, many women now face a life as widows with no prospect for a permanent second marriage. (Iraqui men prefer virgins as their “permanent” wives.)

"Mutaa" (temporary enjoyment marriages) allow married and single men to sleep with multiple women by agreeing to a "mutaa" and financially supporting her.

These "marriages" last from a few hours to a few years, and only the man may start or end them.

Men can have a permanent wife and multiple mutaa wives. Women may have only one husband. Iraqui feminists say its all just a religious scam to cover up what amounts to prostitution.

Read the full article at - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16717237/

Iraqui feminists say its all just a religious scam to cover up what amounts to prostitution.

Roy, I don't believe much that is written in the Washington Post, especially articles that have gender feminism written all over them. It is not a legitimate newspaper. The article doesn't say that the practice is commonplace. In fact, the article provides no quantitative data (which is why it is published in the Washington Post).

And as for prostitution, at least in this country, most are women who are financially well-off. By and large, they are not the drug addicted women with tattoo's that you see on Cops. Ask a sex worker from a Nevada brothel how much money she makes. Why doesn't feminism support the independent business woman?

But your comment above represents one of the many dichotomies of feminism ...

A woman has the right to do what she wants with her own body, so abortion is good. Only right-wing religious fanatics oppose the God-given fundamental right of abortion.

A woman doesn't have the right to do what she wants with her own body, so prostitution is bad. Only right-wing religious fanactics support prostitution (as suggested in the Washington Post article).

A woman has the right to do what she wants with her own body, so divorces initiated by women are good. Only right-wing religious fanactics oppose divorce as a means of keeping women subservient.

A man doesn't have the right to do what he wants with his own body, so adultery committed by men is bad. Only right-wing religious fanatics engage in adultery.

Homosexual marriage is good. The state doesn't have a right to keep people from their sexual orientation. Only right-wing religious fanatics oppose same-sex marriage.

Polygamist marriage is bad. The state has a right to keep people from their sexual orientation. Only right-wing religious fanatics support polygamist marriage.

Make up your mind. Be consistent.